Defending Capitalism

[benjamindees]

This would be easy if you could simply answer a straightforward, yes-or-no question without erecting endless strawmen.  Child exposure is not a hypothetical extreme case.  It has existed in large, successful societies in the past.  Abortion, an almost morally identical practice, is common today.  Whether you personally would adopt a single child for a few years changes none of the large scale dynamics of the issue.

But clearly you are more interested in maintaining your little inconsistent, incomplete political philosophy rather than learning how the world works or improving it.

[NghtRppr]

Whether you personally would adopt a single child for a few years changes none of the large scale dynamics of the issue.

So, you're just going ignore the part where I said that millions of childless couples would likely do the same?

[benjamindees]

Whether you personally would adopt a single child for a few years changes none of the large scale dynamics of the issue.

So, you're just going ignore the part where I said that millions of childless couples would likely do the same?

Yes, because it's nonsense.  There are a billion starving, uncared-for people on the planet.  No one is adopting all of them.

This is just pointless rhetoric that you would like to use to justify your contrived moral philosophy.

I've asked you questions that have to do with extreme cases, because they are the easiest questions to answer.  Since you can't answer them with a straightforward "yes" or "no", discussing more common cases would be pointless.

[NghtRppr]

There are a billion starving, uncared-for people on the planet.  No one is adopting all of them.

Yes, especially since they aren't all children. I didn't know we were adopting adults too.

[JA37]

It doesn't really matter since the entire country hasn't been homesteaded therefore it isn't owned, collectively or otherwise.

Was that the answer to the question about the gated community? Homesteading? Seriously?

So  what if I "homestead" this bit of land, set up that gated community that we've been discussing. It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up. The problems that I pointed out still remains. The agression is still there. Or is it? I don't think you answered that question. Is locking you up only agression if the state does it, not if a private property owner does it (if they can't throw you out for the reason mentioned above). Is forcefully separating you from your friends and loved ones agression when the state does it, but defence when a private property owner does it?

Or is it that when you have rules there is someone who has to enforce them? Perhaps that's just standard operating procedure when dealing with humans in a non trivial system? Call it agression if you like, but don't pretend that the state is the only one that does it.

[JA37]

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
But in the example I mentioned then each member of the community had an equal share of ownership and being born in that was given a share. Dying would relieve you of a share.
I don't understand how you understood that to be collective responsibility for children. I also don't think I put the responsibility of the children anywhere special, but parents are generally responsible for their children.

[NghtRppr]

It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up.

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[JA37]

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

That bit is crystal clear. And we agree on it, believe it or not. Now answer the questions in the stated example.

[BCEmporium]

It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up.

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Wrong! If someone happens to be born within your property and now grew up to be an adult, he didn't choose to born in your property, he also owns you nothing... if you come to charge or evict him you're committing yourself the very same aggression you complaint so much the State does to you.
Funny, eh?

Your arguments are of too "inter-personal" issues/businesses, too narrow vision. You've to wider your vision to have a notion of what is "a State", a "State" isn't you and more two or three guys, not even there's ground to say that everyone will act like you, or as you think you would act.

[NghtRppr]

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

That bit is crystal clear. And we agree on it, believe it or not. Now answer the questions in the stated example.

I must admit, I'm shocked that you agree with me but how is the question in your example any different? Is it because there are several partial owners instead of a single complete owner? What complications am I missing? What questions haven't I answered?

[JA37]

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there. You didn't sign anything. Is it an act of agression to toss you out. Can we keep some of your stuff as payment for services already provided that you decided not to pay for? Is that agresson?
Even more fun, let's say you get a share just by being born there, and the rules say we can't take that share away form you by force, so we can't throw you out unless you give up that share of your own free will. How can we get you to pay the fee? Can we lock you up until you agree to the rules, and pay? Is that agression?

Let's also say that it's homesteaded.

This is from a few posts ago. I deleted a misunderstanding from my side, just the questions remain.
Please let me know how you think.

From your latest post I gather that you think it's agression if the government puts you in jail for not paying taxes, but not if they strip you of your citizenship and put you on the next boat to wherever.

[NghtRppr]

All of the land in the USA hasn't been homesteaded. However, let's just say that for the sake of argument that the entire USA has been homesteaded and then all those people voluntarily pooled their ownership of their property together to create the government. Then I would have absolutely no problem with being deported, by force if necessary. You don't even need to put me on a boat. Just boot my ass into the ocean and tell me to sink or swim.

[The Script]

It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up.

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Wrong! If someone happens to be born within your property and now grew up to be an adult, he didn't choose to born in your property, he also owns you nothing... if you come to charge or evict him you're committing yourself the very same aggression you complaint so much the State does to you.
Funny, eh?

Your arguments are of too "inter-personal" issues/businesses, too narrow vision. You've to wider your vision to have a notion of what is "a State", a "State" isn't you and more two or three guys, not even there's ground to say that everyone will act like you, or as you think you would act.

So you are saying that the State owns all the land within its borders?  No private property exists? 

[BCEmporium]

So you are saying that the State owns all the land within its borders?  No private property exists?  

"The State" is a collective body representing everybody living within its borders. This "collective body" actually is the primary proprietary of anything within its borders. To the end... yes.
However there're a few differences, this proprietary doesn't evict people, because that's impossible - say you don't pay your taxes and are evicted to...? Mexico? Canada? the ocean? the moon? - instead it has to use coercive methods to get people to pay the "rental".

Private property is a sub-property of the State. You can't kill anyone inside your house and don't let the cops come in because "you own it"... however you can commit a crime in the US and run to Mexico or vice-versa, as neither US owns Mexico nor Mexico US... they can have arrangements and agreements to deal with running criminals, but it's not like your sheriff picking you up on Mexico City.

[benjamindees]

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there.

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?

We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?

I also don't think I put the responsibility of the children anywhere special, but parents are generally responsible for their children.

It's a good thing none of you are actually in charge of a government/gated community, because it would be the most incompetently-run bureaucratic mess on earth.

It took six replies to establish that parents are responsible for their children.  Tax the fucking parents.

[JA37]

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there.

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?

We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?

I also don't think I put the responsibility of the children anywhere special, but parents are generally responsible for their children.

It's a good thing none of you are actually in charge of a government/gated community, because it would be the most incompetently-run bureaucratic mess on earth.

It took six replies to establish that parents are responsible for their children.  Tax the fucking parents.

Have you thought that through? You're saying that I'm somehow responsible for the debts of my grown children?  The example was an +18 child with income, but still you want to make the parents responsible? For an adult? Somehow I still think that it's more fair to make everyone accountable for their own actions after they are mature enough to understand consequenses, which happens to be set at 18 in most places.

As long as we're making obnoxious points. I'm glad you're not in charge either, because your rules would suck.

[NghtRppr]

If I'm in charge, it's the gas chamber for the lot of you. It's a good thing I don't want me or anyone else to be in charge! 

[JA37]

All of the land in the USA hasn't been homesteaded. However, let's just say that for the sake of argument that the entire USA has been homesteaded and then all those people voluntarily pooled their ownership of their property together to create the government. Then I would have absolutely no problem with being deported, by force if necessary. You don't even need to put me on a boat. Just boot my ass into the ocean and tell me to sink or swim.

I don't really see what homesteading have to do with anything really. You live in a geographical area, state or gated community doesn't matter, and there are certain rules to follow. If you don't follow them there will be concequenses.

Now I think BCEmporium put is quite well in a post above.

And no, we're not related. Not that I know of anyway. I don't think any of my friends have any interest in Bitcoin. We do seem to share world view to some degree though, me and BCEmporium.

[NghtRppr]

I don't really see what homesteading have to do with anything really. You live in a geographical area, state or gated community doesn't matter, and there are certain rules to follow.

It matters because your rules only apply to the usage of your property. You don't get to tell me how I use my own property. That's the entire point of it being my property. I get to control it. If you own a gated community. Fine, make whatever rules you like. However, unowned or other people's property isn't subject to your rules.

[benjamindees]

You're saying that I'm somehow responsible for the debts of my grown children?  The example was an +18 child with income, but still you want to make the parents responsible? For an adult? Somehow I still think that it's more fair to make everyone accountable for their own actions after they are mature enough to understand consequenses, which happens to be set at 18 in most places.

I think you have completely failed to establish that your "gated community service charge" is even remotely comparable to a debt.

But, yes, there should be a cost to having children -- a large cost.  And it is morally abhorrent, fraudulent un-physical nonsense to believe that this cost can be placed on the children themselves.  Literally every social ill would be substantially reduced and probably eliminated by forcibly preventing penniless, irresponsible jackasses from siring countless resourceless children and then sending them out into the world to terrorize the rest of us.